Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,095 posts)
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 08:56 AM Jun 2018

Someone needs to tell Donald Trump: "No, you do not have absolute power to pardon yourself"

If you have plans of pardoning Manafort, or Flynn, or your children, you had better do it now. If any of them are indicted for conspiring with Russia to attack our election system and you, Donald Trump, was aware and supportive of their efforts, then you cannot pardon yourself.

You may think you have absolute power but you do not. You can try and see how it works?

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Someone needs to tell Donald Trump: "No, you do not have absolute power to pardon yourself" (Original Post) kentuck Jun 2018 OP
Actually, whether he does or doesn't is an unresolved legal issue onenote Jun 2018 #1
It is so obviously illegal that I could never envision even this Supreme Court agreeing.... kentuck Jun 2018 #2
I think I agree. Roberts has way waaaayy to much respect for the Historical Institutionalism of the Volaris Jun 2018 #6
I guess when the the Justice Department's legal council PoindexterOglethorpe Jun 2018 #3
It would never fly by the supreme court. drray23 Jun 2018 #5
Trump made some confusing and contradictory comments at his impromptu press conference.... kentuck Jun 2018 #4
Who will bell the cat? LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jun 2018 #7

onenote

(42,703 posts)
1. Actually, whether he does or doesn't is an unresolved legal issue
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 08:58 AM
Jun 2018

Lots of folks have lots of opinions, but no one can cite to any decision that answers the question definitively.

kentuck

(111,095 posts)
2. It is so obviously illegal that I could never envision even this Supreme Court agreeing....
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 09:00 AM
Jun 2018

... with such a preposterous statement. It is not so much "unresolved" as never so insane as to be tested.

Volaris

(10,271 posts)
6. I think I agree. Roberts has way waaaayy to much respect for the Historical Institutionalism of the
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 11:21 AM
Jun 2018

Court, to EVER let that fly, AND I'd bet next semesters tuition that if Roberts had his way, it would be a unanimous decision, just for the impact that would carry. The courts seem willing to let a lot slide in deference to Executive Power, but the reciprocity for that seems to be 'Do not, DO NOT fuck with us.' If trump insists, Roberts WILL make an example of him that history will not forgot, I think.

PoindexterOglethorpe

(25,857 posts)
3. I guess when the the Justice Department's legal council
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 09:01 AM
Jun 2018

told Nixon he couldn't pardon himself, that wasn't definitive. Okay, so it wasn't the Supreme Court, but that strikes me as pretty definitive.

drray23

(7,629 posts)
5. It would never fly by the supreme court.
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 09:24 AM
Jun 2018

Think about the consequences. It effectively would nullify the constitution and rule of law. Washington dc is not a state so only federal law applies there. This means that Trump could, for example murder an opponent and pardon himself.

He could sell his pardons to whomever needs one and pardon himself for the corrupt act.

He could ignore the results of the 2020 election (if he is still there) and stay in power, pardon himself.

He could let his family and friends not pay any taxes and pardon them when the IRS sues them for tax fraud. Wait, he can already do that last one. I'm surprised it has not happened yet..


kentuck

(111,095 posts)
4. Trump made some confusing and contradictory comments at his impromptu press conference....
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 09:13 AM
Jun 2018

....before leaving for Canada.

First, he responded to a question about pardons for others, by saying that it was not something he had thought about since they had not been convicted of anything. In other words, there would need to be proof of guilt of a crime before a pardon could be given or received?

He also said that no one was "above the law", whether or not he believed it is another question.

Then he said that he had the "absolute power to pardon himself", although he had done nothing to be pardoned for?

Sounded like screams from a drowning man.

7. Who will bell the cat?
Sat Jun 9, 2018, 11:54 AM
Jun 2018

It certainly won't be a Repug. They're all too busy cowering in the corner,

Someone needs to point out the Emperor has no clothes. Oh, wait, they have:

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Someone needs to tell Don...